While sources with knowledge of the case say Wiederhold has insisted his retirement was “ultimately” voluntary — considerations involving ill relatives were a motive – nevertheless, the IG’s efforts to fulfill his duty of being a watchdog against “waste, fraud and abuse” had run into a brick wall of bureaucratic obstruction. Among other things, Amtrak officials were requesting prior review of subpoenaed documents, which were in some cases redacted before being provided to the office of the IG. Amtrak management had also claimed control of $5 million that this year’s “stimulus” legislation had appropriated directly to the Amtrak IG’s office, and had even tried to prevent Wiederhold and his staff from communicating with Congress without prior permission of management.

Despite the “grave concerns” expressed by Towns and Issa three weeks ago, however, Republican sources on Capitol Hill have complained that Democratic staffers on the Oversight Committee have not shown much zeal for the investigation. Sources say Democratic staffers have skipped meetings and conference calls to which they were invited by GOP investigators, who are attempting to work with Grassley’s staff in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of efforts. Sharing documents and scheduling interviews with witnesses, allowing Republican and Democratic investigators from both chambers an opportunity to question these witnesses, is a demanding logistical task. And GOP staffers complain that this task seems to be lacking in terms of bipartisanship.

“Staff doesn’t speak for the committee,” a source on Capitol Hill explained last week. “The committee speaks for the committee.”
That’s the practical meaning of Senate Rule 29, which has been invoked regarding the Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee investigation into last month’s firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin.
The committee’s chairman, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, is entirely within his prerogative to protect the integrity of the investigation via Rule 29, which reads, in part:“Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.”
Staffers therefore discuss the investigation at peril of termination and prosecution, and are understandably skittish when a reporter walks in the door. . . .

Please read the whole thing. Rule 29 helps explain why “The Little Scandal That Could” doesn’t make front-page news every day. Committee staffers could be fired – and even members of the committee could be expelled from the Senate – for talking to reporters without authorization. Lieberman’s press office will only repeat assurances that the investigation is proceeding on a bipartisan basis, and the last time Lieberman commented publicly on the AmeriCorp IG case, it was to deny accusations in a June 24 Washington Times editorial that he was “punting” the investigation.

Meanwhile, however, the Lieberman committee is “reviewing” the Walpin case. There is no indication when, or even if, the committee plans to hold public hearings, with witnesses subpoenaed to testify under oath. And no member or staffer on the committee can discuss the Walpin “review” without falling afoul of Rule 29.

One cause for Republican skepticism about the committee’s investigation is the fact that ranking GOP member of the Lieberman committee is Maine Sen. Susan Collins, hardly the kind of partisan firebrand who could be expected to push hard for public hearings on the dismissal of Walpin, who is unapologetically a conservative Republican. One GOP source on the Hill said last week he expects Collins will “roll over” and do whatever Lieberman wants.

York and I, it appears, have some sources in common. One reason I keep making “shoe leather” trips to Capitol Hill is to try to shake information out of sources York hasn’t got. And this sort of journalistic competition is very much encouraged by those involved in the investigations. Working overtime to do my part, on Sunday afternoon, I discussed the Walpin lawsuit with a veteran of several federal investigations:

Win or lose, the Walpin lawsuit definitely adds a new angle to the story, primarily through the legal process known as “discovery,” whereby the defendants can be required to disclose…well, just about anything, really. If there is some document that the plaintiff can convince a judge is relevant to the case, the defendants will be ordered to hand it over, and then there are the sworn depositions. These requirements expose the defendants to legal jeopardy — for perjury, obstruction of justice and other such “process crimes” — if they don’t fully and honestly cooperate.
If all this sounds vaguely familiar, perhaps the reader is recalling a lawsuit, Jones v. Clinton, which led to the momentous deposition in which the defendant, William Jefferson Clinton, committed perjury about “that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Of course, as Americans were lectured for months on end, “everybody lies about sex,” but does everybody lie about firing a government watchdog whose job is to keep an eye out for “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal agencies?
Asked about the practical consequences of Walpin’s lawsuit, one former federal prosecutor familiar with such cases said that unless the suit is dropped or dismissed, it will eventually push new information about the case into the public record. “Eventually” is the key word, as the wheels of justice grind slowly. . . .

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.